Phase III Workshop 1Monday, October 8, 2018

Connection and Appreciation

• Meaningful and impactful outcomes of Phase II

• Lessons learned from Shared Learning Opportunities

• 1 thing you want from others in solutions development

Welcome & Check-In

Public comment:

• Support for expanding number of unrelated people permitted to live together

• Support for flexibility and variety of affordable housing options, creative spaces, etc.

• Support for changes to address need for shelter, community corrections, etc.

• Concern about concentrations of poverty, services in neighborhoods

• Support for updating spacing and density regulations for clarity and enforceability

August Open House recap

Today’s AgendaTime Topic Objective(s)

1:00 – 1:25 Welcome and Check In Connect and share

1:25 – 1:30 Meeting Agenda and Objectives Orient to now

1:30 – 2:00 Blueprint Denver Presentation with Q&A Learn

2:00 – 2:30 Fair Housing Act Presentation with Q&A Learn

2:30 – 3:00 Decision-making Criteria

• Rapid refinement process

Decide

3:00 – 4:55 Problem Resolution 1: Household Definition

• Staff presentation of options and preferred

alternative

• Criteria-based review of alternatives

• Community-oriented decision-making process

Solve

4:55 – 5:00 Gratitude, Next Steps and Close Improve

Proposed Phase III schedule What? Where? How?Recommended

Change

Schedule Problem Statement KeyEmerging

Uses

Artist/DIY/Co

opCommunity

Corrections

Shelter Transitional/

Special Care

Housing

55+/Adult/S

enior Care

Blueprint Denver Briefing

October 8, 2018

What is Blueprint Denver?

• “Big Picture” view on how our community values

inform how a future Denver looks, feels, and

functions

• Establishes policy direction on land use,

transportation and urban design

• Strategy for future growth

8

9

Blueprint Process Update

10

Blueprint Denver Public Review Draft

11

Land use and transportation plan for growing

an inclusive city:

• Creating complete neighborhoods and

networks

• Measured, common-sense approach to

growth

• Consideration of social equity factors to

tailor solutions by neighborhood

12

Key Equity Concepts

• Community Engagement Window: August thru October 31• Office Hours held in different parts of the City – Sept/October• Online survey and comments• Other Community Events

• Planning Board• Draft Plan Released – December• Planning Board Public Hearing – Late January

• City Council - February

13

Upcoming Schedule

Blueprint Denver 2019 Update

Housing Recommendation 01

Revise city regulations to respond to the demands of Denver’s unique and modern housing needs.

A. Update Group Living use categories; encourage flexibility and affordability

B. Update the zoning code to provide a more inclusive definition of households and reflect diverse living

arrangements

C. Ensure city codes and land use regulations support modern and equitable approaches to housing options for

people experiencing homelessness and those transitioning out of homelessness.

Blueprint Denver 2019 Update

Other Housing Recommendations

• Integrate “Missing Middle” housing

• Allow additional unit(s) to be added to an existing structure if structure is preserved

• Incentivize ongoing use of existing smaller, more affordable homes

• Diversify housing choice by expanding ADU opportunities

• Incentivize development of affordable and mixed-income housing near services and transit

• Encourage development of family-friendly housing

Federal: Fair Housing Act

• Adopted in 1968 as part of the Civil Rights Act

• Prohibits discrimination based on:o Raceo Coloro Religiono National Origino Sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity)o Disability (includes mental illness, recovery from addiction, illness, physical and mental

disabilities)o Familial status

• Constantly evolving case law about spacing, “family,” etc.

Laws governing Group Homes in Colorado

Laws governing Group Homes in Colorado, Cont.

State: Colorado Statute § 31-23-303

• Group Homes with 8 or less persons may not be prohibited from residential zoneso Intellectual or Developmental Disabilitieso Mental Illnesso Persons 60 years of age or older

• Permits spacing restrictions (gray area, may be in conflict with federal requirements)

Decision-making criteria

19

Decision-Making Process

1. Staff analysis of alternatives

2. Consider minimum criteria to advance an option—>Pass = meets all criteria (moves towards ideal future state)

—>Fail = does not meet minimum criteria (remove from options)

—>Minimum criteria = essential factors (moves towards ideal future state)

—>Ideal future state = optimal conditions subgroups are seeking

3. Which alternative(s) makes the greatest progress toward ideal

future, while limiting unintended consequences

4. Poll: consensus reached?

20

Expanded Decision-Making Criteria1. Is consistent with adopted plans (Pass/Fail - Must Pass per Charter 3.2.9(C) and DZC 12.4.11.4.A)

2. Is equitable – not necessarily equal – in terms of neighborhood policies and impact

3. Provides for more affordable and attainable housing options across the full range of resident incomes, considering creative options in the process.

4. Limits potential for unintended consequences perceived as negative or in conflict with community character, economic viability and existing or future plans and policies

5. Is clear to administer and enforce

6. Is clear and predictable to all stakeholders

7. Uses language that is consistent with relevant city, state and federal regulations

8. Is enforceable with minimal entry to properties by Zoning & Neighborhood Inspection Services and other staff

Any Refinements Needed?

1. Small group discussion

2. Write suggested changes on sticky notes and post on front

flipchart – post “none” if none

3. Large group: Review suggestions

4. Large group: If we broke or ignored any of these criteria,

could we still achieve our desired future?

Problem Resolution #1: Household Definition

• Update to definition of “household” to acknowledge

foster/guardianship relationships.

• Number of unrelated adults

• Method of regulation

• Permits two unrelated adults, plus an unlimited number of certain specified

relations in Single Unit (SU) zone districts

• Requires Home Occupation permit for:

o Foster Family Care

o Rooming and Boarding (1+ roommates in SU)

• Complicates desired uses

o Cooperative Housing

o Co-Living

o Co-ownership of homes

DZC Current Household Definition

24

Denver Zoning Code Household DefinitionA dwelling unit occupied by persons in any one of the following four categories living as a single, non-profit housekeeping unit, including any permitted domestic employees:

a. A single person plus any number of persons bearing to each other the relationship of: parent, grandparent, child, sibling, step-child, step-sibling, step-parent, grandchild, parent-in-law, sibling-in-law, child-in-law, parent-sibling (uncle or aunt), or nibling(nephew or niece); or

b. Two persons living together as spouses, domestic partners, or civil union partners, plus any number of persons bearing to either the relationship of: parent, grandparent, child, sibling, step-child, step-sibling, step-parent, grandchild, parent-in-law, sibling-in-law, child-in-law, parent-sibling (uncle or aunt), or nibling (nephew or niece); or

c. In a single unit dwelling use only: One or two unrelated adults over the age of 18 years plus any persons bearing to either of the two unrelated adults the relationship of parent, grandparent, child, sibling, step-child, step-sibling, step-parent, grandchild,parent-in-law, sibling-in-law, child-in-law, parent-sibling (uncle or aunt), or nibling (nephew or niece); or

d. In a two-unit dwelling use or multi-unit dwelling use only: Up to four unrelated adults over the age of 18 years plus any persons bearing to either of the four unrelated adults the relationship of parent, grandparent, child, sibling, step-child, stepsibling, step-parent, grandchild, parent-in-law, sibling-in-law, child-in-law, parent-sibling (uncle or aunt), or nibling (nephew or niece).

25

2 3 4 5 6 8 Unlimited

Denver Boulder Aurora Arvada Austin, TX Seattle, WA Most California Cities*

Englewood Commerce City Brighton Castle Rock Bend, OR *2/bedroom +1 in

“living space”

Fort Collins Golden Colorado Springs

Littleton Northglenn Lakewood

Loveland Thornton Longmont

Wheat Ridge Westminster Parker

Salt Lake City, UT Las Vegas, NV Unincorporated Adams Co.

Unincorporated Arapahoe Co

Albuquerque, NM

Boise, ID

Kansas City, MO

Oklahoma City, OK

Phoenix, AZ

Portland, OR

Peer Cities Review: Unrelated Adults Allowed in Single Unit

26

• Foster and Guardianship relationships: Majority of Colorado and peer cities studied

include foster care/legal guardianship in Family and/or Household definition.

• Most cities we looked at use the term “family” to describe various types of

housekeeping units.

• For example, Seattle, WA: Defines “Family” as, “A housekeeping unit

consisting of any number of related persons; eight or fewer non-related, non-

transient persons; eight or fewer related and non-related non-transient

persons, unless a grant of special or reasonable accommodation allows an

additional number of persons.”

Peer Cities Review: Key Findings

Household Definition: Foster/Guardianship

Relationships

28

Household Definition Staff/Dept. Recommendation:

Include “foster care/legal guardianship” in Zoning Code’s definition

of Household,” or any proposed updated versions of the definition

(such as defining “family,” rather than household.

29

Decision-Making Criteria: Foster/Guardianship Relationships

1. Is consistent with adopted plans (Pass/Fail - Must Pass per Charter 3.2.9(C) and DZC 12.4.11.4.A)

2. Is equitable – not necessarily equal – in terms of neighborhood policies and impact

3. Provides for more affordable and attainable housing options across the full range of resident incomes, considering creative options in the process.

4. Limits potential for unintended consequences perceived as negative or in conflict with community character, economic viability and existing or future plans and policies

5. Is clear to administer and enforce

6. Is clear and predictable to all stakeholders

7. Uses language that is consistent with relevant city, state and federal regulations

8. Is enforceable with minimal entry to properties by Zoning & Neighborhood Inspection Services and other staff

30

Revising the Household Definition [Poll]

Should Foster Care/Guardianship Relationships be included in

the definition of “Family” or otherwise included in Household

definition?

1. Support

2. Can live with it

3. Cannot live with it

Evaluated against the Group Living Advisory Committee Review Criteria

Units of Measure for Unrelated Adults

Alternatives Considered for Denver

1. Regulating by Dwelling Unit

2. Regulating by house size as reflected in number of bedrooms

per Dwelling Unit

3. Regulating by no unit of measurement

4. Regulating by house size in square feet

5. Regulating by number of off-street parking spaces

A. By maximum number per Dwelling Unit

Max of (8) unrelated adults

B. By bedroom (as defined in Building and Fire Code): *2 persons/bedroom is used by other codes, referenced in HUD documents, etc.

2 persons per bedroom

max of (8) unrelated adults

C. By No Unit of Measure

Unlimited number of unrelated adults

Alternatives for Regulating the Number of Unrelated Adults

(CPD Recommendation)

C. By Dwelling Unit Square Footage• Regulation by square footage was intentionally removed from Zoning Code in

2010 update

• Difficult to enforce

• Not preferred by Neighborhood Inspection Services staff

D. By parking spaces• DZC does not require off-street parking in SU districts

• Parking is not a good measure of appropriate density and vehicle ownership is

evolving and not assumed of all residents

Alternatives Ruled out by Criteria Analysis

35

What’s missing?

1. Discuss at tables (5 mins)

2. Report to large group

36

Unit of Measure for Unrelated Adults [Poll]

Do any of the options fail to meet 1 or more criteria?

A. By maximum number per Dwelling Unit

B. By bedroom (as defined in Building and Fire Code): *2 persons/bedroom is used by other codes, referenced in HUD documents, etc.

C. By No Unit of Measure

Evaluated against the Group Living Advisory Committee Review Criteria

37

Group Discussion: Appropriate Number of Unrelated

Adults and the right unit of measure/regulatory

scheme?

38

Process

Step 1 - Mix up groups

1. Neighborhood rep with strong preferences? Spread out

among tables.

2. Others with strong preferences? Spread out among tables.

3. One more group member stand and move to next table.

39

Process

Step 2 – Select speakers and recorder

1. Strong preference? Raise hands.

2. 30 seconds: share preferences (just issue, not why)

3. 1 min: ID 2 people to share more about their preferences

4. ID person to record preferences and key issues on flip chart during discussion

40

Process

Step 3 – Consider preferred alternatives

1. Alt 1: share why, what matters most to you, how it moves best toward ideal future/how works best for all (2-3 mins) Others note questions

2. Alt 2: share why, what matters most to you, how it moves best toward ideal future/how works best for all (2-3 mins) Others note questions

3. Q&A session: Record pros/cons for each alt

4. Add perspectives – other options to add if neither of 1st alts satisfy all

41

Process

Step 4 – Recommend alternative

1. Which alternative seems to work best for all and to achieve ideal future?

Record

2. Anyone object? Can sticking point(s) be addressed in another step on

decision map? Record

3. Report to full group: recommendation and rationale

Poll: [pref1]

1. In support

2. Can with it

3. Can NOT live with it

Next Steps

• Staff will develop amendment strategy based on preferred

alternatives identified

• Will be posted on project webpage and e-mailed to group

THANK YOU